LONDON--Today WikiLeaks began
publishing The Global Intelligence Files – more than five million emails
from the Texas-headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor.
The emails date from between July 2004 and late December 2011. They
reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence
publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large
corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin,
Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US
Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defense
Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers,
pay-off structure, payment-laundering techniques and psychological
methods, for example:

"[Y]ou have to take control of him.
Control means financial, sexual or psychological control... This is
intended to start our conversation on your next phase" – CEO George
Friedman to Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla on 6 December 2011, on how to
exploit an Israeli intelligence informant providing information on the
medical condition of the President of Venezuala, Hugo Chavez.

The material contains privileged
information about the US government's attacks against Julian Assange and
WikiLeaks and Stratfor's own attempts to subvert WikiLeaks. There are
more than 4,000 emails mentioning WikiLeaks or Julian Assange. The
emails also expose the revolving door that operates in private
intelligence companies in the United States. Government and diplomatic
sources from around the world give Stratfor advance knowledge of global
politics and events in exchange for money. The Global Intelligence Files
exposes how Stratfor has recruited a global network of informants who
are paid via Swiss banks accounts and pre-paid credit cards. Stratfor
has a mix of covert and overt informants, which includes government
employees, embassy staff and journalists around the world.

The material shows how a private
intelligence agency works, and how they target individuals for their
corporate and government clients. For example, Stratfor monitored and
analysed the online activities of Bhopal activists, including the "Yes
Men", for the US chemical giant Dow Chemical. The activists seek redress
for the 1984 Dow Chemical/Union Carbide gas disaster in Bhopal, India.
The disaster led to thousands of deaths, injuries in more than half a
million people, and lasting environmental damage.

Stratfor has realised that its routine
use of secret cash bribes to get information from insiders is risky. In
August 2011, Stratfor CEO George Friedman confidentially told his
employees: "We are retaining a law firm to create a policy for Stratfor
on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I don't plan to do the perp walk
and I don't want anyone here doing it either."

Stratfor's use of insiders for
intelligence soon turned into a money-making scheme of questionable
legality. The emails show that in 2009 then-Goldman Sachs Managing
Director Shea Morenz and Stratfor CEO George Friedman hatched an idea
to "utilise the intelligence" it was pulling in from its insider network
to start up a captive strategic investment fund. CEO George Friedman
explained in a confidential August 2011 document, marked DO NOT SHARE OR
DISCUSS: "What StratCap will do is use our Stratfor's intelligence and
analysis to trade in a range of geopolitical instruments, particularly
government bonds, currencies and the like". The emails show that in
2011 Goldman Sach's Morenz invested "substantially" more than $4million
and joined Stratfor's board of directors. Throughout 2011, a complex
offshore share structure extending as far as South Africa was erected,
designed to make StratCap appear to be legally independent. But,
confidentially, Friedman told StratFor staff: "Do not think of StratCap
as an outside organisation. It will be integral... It will be useful to
you if, for the sake of convenience, you think of it as another aspect
of Stratfor and Shea as another executive in Stratfor... we are already
working on mock portfolios and trades". StratCap is due to launch in
2012.

The Stratfor emails reveal a company
that cultivates close ties with US government agencies and employs
former US government staff. It is preparing the 3-year Forecast for the
Commandant of the US Marine Corps, and it trains US marines and "other
government intelligence agencies" in "becoming government Stratfors".
Stratfor's Vice-President for Intelligence, Fred Burton, was formerly a
special agent with the US State Department's Diplomatic Security Service
and was their Deputy Chief of the counterterrorism division. Despite
the governmental ties, Stratfor and similar companies operate in
complete secrecy with no political oversight or accountability.
Stratfor claims that it operates "without ideology, agenda or national
bias", yet the emails reveal private intelligence staff who align
themselves closely with US government policies and channel tips to the
Mossad – including through an information mule in the Israeli newspaper
Haaretz, Yossi Melman, who conspired with Guardian journalist David
Leigh to secretly, and in violation of WikiLeaks' contract with the
Guardian, move WikiLeaks US diplomatic cables to Israel.

Ironically, considering the present
circumstances, Stratfor was trying to get into what it called the
leak-focused "gravy train" that sprung up after WikiLeaks’ Afghanistan
disclosures:

"[Is it] possible for us to get
some of that 'leak-focused' gravy train? This is an obvious fear sale,
so that's a good thing. And we have something to offer that the IT
security companies don't, mainly our focus on counter-intelligence and
surveillance that Fred and Stick know better than anyone on the
planet... Could we develop some ideas and procedures on the idea of
´leak-focused' network security that focuses on preventing one's own
employees from leaking sensitive information... In fact, I'm not so
sure this is an IT problem that requires an IT solution."

Like WikiLeaks’ diplomatic cables, much
of the significance of the emails will be revealed over the coming
weeks, as our coalition and the public search through them and discover
connections. Readers will find that whereas large numbers of Stratfor's
subscribers and clients work in the US military and intelligence
agencies, Stratfor gave a complimentary membership to the controversial
Pakistan general Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan's ISI intelligence
service, who, according to US diplomatic cables, planned an IED attack
on international forces in Afghanistan in 2006. Readers will discover
Stratfor's internal email classification system that codes
correspondence according to categories such as 'alpha', 'tactical' and
'secure'. The correspondence also contains code names for people of
particular interest such as 'Izzies' (members of Hezbollah), or 'Adogg'
(Mahmoud Ahmedinejad).

Stratfor did secret deals with dozens
of media organisations and journalists – from Reuters to the Kiev Post.
The list of Stratfor’s "Confederation Partners", whom Stratfor
internally referred to as its "Confed Fuck House" are included in the
release. While it is acceptable for journalists to swap information or
be paid by other media organisations, because Stratfor is a private
intelligence organisation that services governments and private clients
these relationships are corrupt or corrupting.

WikiLeaks has also obtained Stratfor's
list of informants and, in many cases, records of its payoffs, including
$1,200 a month paid to the informant "Geronimo" , handled by
Stratfor's Former State Department agent Fred Burton.

WikiLeaks has built an investigative
partnership with more than 25 media organisations and activists to
inform the public about this huge body of documents. The organisations
were provided access to a sophisticated investigative database developed
by WikiLeaks and together with WikiLeaks are conducting journalistic
evaluations of these emails. Important revelations discovered using this
system will appear in the media in the coming weeks, together with the
gradual release of the source documents.

Public partners in the investigation:

More than 25 media partners (others will be disclosed after their first publication):

Monday, February 13, 2012

Following revelations
that Julia Gillard's staff was drafting an acceptance speech two weeks
before she ousted Kevin Rudd as Australian PM, and that Kim Beazley was
briefing Hillary Clinton on the leadership change two weeks before it
happened, I have compiled the following time-line of known events,
including selected text from US Embassy cables.

While there is no smoking gun here, it does show that US officials were keenly interested in leadership speculation, identifying Gillard as a potential successor to Rudd within 8 months of his election victory, and closely monitoring her progress on key issues like Israel and Afghanistan. They were also in close contact with the major players in ALP factions, including Mark Arbib and other "protected" sources. Interestingly, the frenzied ALP leadership jockeying in Canberra during May-June 2010 coincides with Bradley Manning's May 2010 arrest and the frenzied US State Dept diplomacy that followed it.

Make of it what you will!

* * *

24 November 2007 - Rudd wins election after a
campaign in which he called climate change "the greatest moral, economic
and social challenge of our time". He promptly signs the Kyoto
Protocol, leaving the USA isolated. Australia withdraws remaining
"combat troops" from Iraq.

29 November 2007 - Rudd directly chooses his frontbench, breaking
with more than a century of Labor tradition whereby the frontbench was
elected by the Labor caucus, with the leader then given the right to
allocate portfolios.

"At
this point, Gillard would have to be considered the front-runner to
succeed Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, which would make her Australia's
first female Prime Minister. Several contacts caution, however, that
Rudd is ambivalent about Gillard, who is not from Labor's Right Wing
like he is, and he will avoid creating a potential rival. By the time
Labor is thinking beyond Rudd, Gillard may well face more serious
competition....

Many key ALP insiders have told poloffs
that Gillard, who joined the ALP as a member of the Victorian branch's
Socialist Left faction, is at heart a pragmatist. New South Wales Right
powerbroker Mark Arbib (protect) described her as one of the most
pragmatic politicians in the ALP. Michael Cooney (protect), from the ALP
Right and a former senior adviser to ALP leaders Mark Latham and Kim
Beazley, said she has been very impressive as a minister: knowledgeable
on the issues, listens to advice from subordinates and civil servants
and is not afraid to delegate responsibility. When we reminded Paul
Howes (protect), head of the right-wing Australian Workers Union, that
ALP Qof the right-wing Australian Workers Union, that ALP politicians
from the Left, no matter how capable, do not become party leader, he
said immediately: "but she votes with the Right." ...

Although
long appearing ambivalent about the Australia-US Alliance, Gillard's
actions since she became the Labor Party number two indicate an
understanding of its importance... Although warm and engaging in her
dealings with American diplomats, it's unclear whether this change in
attitude reflects a mellowing of her views or an understanding of what
she needs to do to become leader of the ALP. It is likely a combination
of the two. Labor Party officials have told us that one lesson Gillard
took from the 2004 elections was that Australians will not elect a PM
who is perceived to be anti-American."

10 November 2008 - Rudd votes against Israel on two UN resolutions, ending Howard government's unswerving alignment with the United States.

11 Feb 2009 - US Canberrra Embassy cable notes:

"Rudd,
who likes to centralize decision-making in any event, undoubtedly
believes that with his intellect, his six years as a diplomat in the
1980s and his five years as shadow foreign minister, he has the
background and the ability to direct Australia's foreign policy. His
performance so far, however, demonstrates that he does not have the
staff or the experience to do the job properly... In October, Rudd's
self-serving and inaccurate leaking of details of a phone call between
President Bush and him cast further doubt on his foreign policy
judgment... In January, after the press published a story that the U.S.
had asked Australia to accept some Guantanamo detainees, the Government
responded to the story by issuing a statement publicly acknowledging our
confidential request and stating that they were not likely to accept
the detainees."

June 10 2009 - US Canberra Embassy cable titled "Gillard: on Track To Become Australia's Next Prime Minister" notes:

"Deputy
Prime Minister Julia Gillard - who visits Washington later this month -
has positioned herself as the heir apparent to Prime Minister Kevin
Rudd as ALP leader... Gillard, a product of the ALP Left in the state of
Victoria, has shifted towards the political center since Rudd became
ALP leader and is now a strong supporter of the Australia-US Alliance
and Israel. Although she is still seen as a leftist by key right-wing
union powerbrokers, that is not likely to stop her from succeeding Rudd
as the next leader of the ALP... Gillard recognizes that to become Prime
Minister, she must move to the Center, and show her support for the
Alliance with the United States... Don Farrell, the right-wing union
powerbroker from South Australia told us Gillard is "campaigning for the
leadership" and at this point is the front-runner to succeed Rudd,
conceding that the Right did not yet have an alternative. Agriculture
Minister Tony Burke, one of the early NSW Right backers of the
Rudd-Gillard team, confided that Gillard is the clear front runner to
succeed Rudd and in the end, the ALP caucus will follow the opinion
polls if she is the one the public wants...

At present,
the question of a successor to Rudd is probably two elections away.
Several Rudd confidantes have told us that Rudd appreciates Gillard and
sees her as a possible PM, but that he wants to avoid anointing her to
head off a possible leadership challenge when his poll numbers
inevitably sag. The PM's brother Greg told us in April that Rudd wants
to ensure that there are viable alternatives to Gillard within the Labor
Party to forestall a challenge. Mark Arbib once told us a similar
story, though he stressed that Rudd appreciates Gillard's strengths.
However, another Rudd advisor told us that while the PM respects
Gillard, his reluctance to share power will eventually lead to a falling
out, while Gillard will not want to acquiesce in creating potential
rivals. In the meantime, Gillard has proven her value to the Prime
Minister and we expect her to remain the most important member of the
Rudd Government, after the Prime Minister himself."

"Arbib is a close adviser to
Rudd and is his key conduit to the ALP factions... We have found that
Arbib is an astute observer and able conversant in the nuts and bolts of
U.S. politics. He understands the importance of supporting a vibrant
relationship with the U.S. while not being too deferential. We have
found him personable, confident and articulate. A strong supporter of
the alliance, he has met with us repeatedly throughout his political
rise."

4 August 2009 - US Canberra Embassy cable on ALP Forum:

"Rudd, to
the bewilderment of many observers, remains highly popular with voters
across the political spectrum. This is the bedrock of Rudd's
unchallenged authority over the party."

October 2009 - WikiLeaks publishes Joint Services Protocol 440, a
British document advising security services on how to avoid documents
being leaked.

"Foreign Minister Smith stepped out of Rudd's shadow and
the resignation of Joel Fitzgibbon as Defense Minister proved to be a
blessing for the government. Support for the U.S. Alliance, and the
mission in Afghanistan, remained strong.... Labor Right factional
powerbroker Mark Arbib - close to the Prime Minister - was rewarded with
a ministry despite his inexperience... [Gillard] remains Rudd's clear
heir apparent. Colleagues continue to be in awe of her mastery of detail
and confident performances...Rudd has unprecedented power for a Labor
leader; one MP told us he had never seen a Labor Caucus as subservient
to its leader, noting Rudd's control over promotions. Another told us
she was surprised at marginal seat holders' acquiescence on the ETS.
However, powerbrokers confide the factions will assert themselves when
Rudd's popularity wanes."

18 February 2010 - WikiLeaks publishes REYKJAVIK13 cable, dated 13 January 2010. This is the first published Cablegate file.

April 2010 - Polling shows Rudd government was highly popular until this month. Graph here.

April 2010 - WikiLeaks publishes Collateral Murder video.

May 2010 - Bradley Manning is arrested after online chats with
Adrian Lamo. US State Dept goes into damage control over release of
cables. Australian Mining industry launches media "ad war" against
Rudd's Minerals Resource Rent Tax.

10 June 2010 (approx) - Australia's US ambassador and former
Labor leader Kim Beazley meets US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to
provide a briefing on the coming leadership change.

23 June 2010 - Gillard announces leadership bid for next day.

24 June 2010 - Rudd steps down, becoming the only Australian
Prime Minister to be removed from office by his own party during his
first term.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

I had an interesting chat this morning with some-time US WikiLeaks lawyer Timothy Matusheski (@SLMCORP1 on Twitter).

Mr Matusheski is a lawyer who found himself in the middle of negotiations between the US Defense Department and Julian Assange, prior to the release of the Afghan War Logs, when it was suggested that the US government might want to review and redact the files before they were published. Read this Wired account of the story to better understand the chat below.

"Wired reported the facts as I related them to reporters accurately," confirmed Matusheski. "The Pentagon's statements are untrue."

I asked if he'd had any further contact with WikiLeaks or the US government since then.

"I have had contact with the Ames, FBI, etc since that interview," said Matusheski. "Assange too."

I asked if he had been asked to provide evidence to the US Grand Jury investigation into WikiLeaks.

"The grand jury is not an investigation," explained Matsusheski. "The U.S. Constitution requires the gov. to convince a grand jury that it has enough evidence to try case. The grand jury decides this issue - in secret - and enters a true bill if Gov. meets their burden. If an indictment is returned "True Bill" by a grand jury, the suspect or target is indicted. If it does not return true bill, target is not indicted and does not stand trial, or face charges."

"If I had given testimony before the grand jury, I could not tell you about it. I can tell you that I did not give any evidence to a grand jury ever about anything."

"Would you say that being targeted has effectively stopped you helping WikiLeaks?" I asked. "Or are you still involved?"

"U.S. made me a target of investigation to stop me from helping WL."

Has it worked?

"Yes, it has stopped me, but indirectly only. I am outspoken and told US I would continue to help Assange. Gov. has impeded our ability to communicate."

"There is no evidence regarding me that can be used against Assange. He and WL were a client and I do not disclose confidential info from clients. As you read in Wired, I told them I would only discuss what Assange and I talked about if I saw proof that Assange or WL are an immediate threat to the lives of others. They offered no proof."

I thanked Mr Matusheski for his time and applauded him for supporting Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The USA needs more lawyers like this!

PS: Thanks to @carwinb for the original heads-up on this. Follow her for WikiLeaks info and please donate to help her go cover the #Manning court-martial.

Tony
Crook thanks you for your email and has asked me to respond on his behalf with
his views.

As
a non-ministerial and non-government member of parliament, Mr Crook and his
office are not privy to any diplomatic decisions, diplomatic briefings or
diplomatic enquiries. These decisions are made entirely by DFAT and the
Minister for Foreign Affairs. As such, much of Mr Crook’s understanding
about Julian Assange, like any other incident involving an Australia overseas,
has been through the media.

Mr
Crook firmly believes that we all have a vested interest in ensuring that
Australian citizens, whether in Australia or overseas, are treated properly and
afforded the proper protections by the Australian Government. We should
ensure that Mr Assange is afforded all the protections that any Australian
overseas would be afforded – and that these protections are not compromised
merely because of the status of his case.

Thank
you for your email and thank you for voting for Tony Crook at the last
election.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

A WikiLeaks supporter received the following reply from Senator Abetz:

Dear [name withheld], Thank you for your email concerning Wikileaks and Julian Assange. The question you raise is very broad.
I
had some very serious concerns with what Julian Assange did with
Wikileaks. It is tantamount to somebody breaking into your home and
stealing your
diary and then broadcasting its contents to the rest of the world. What
it means is that in the future, people will be a lot more circumspect
in what they report via email. I am not sure that that will be for the
benefit
of international relations. In relation to Julian Asssange’s personal position, I believe that the rule of law should continue to play out as it has been. I trust the above satisfies your enquiry. Yours sincerely Eric AbetzLeader of the Opposition in the SenateShadow Minister for Employment and Workplace RelationsLiberal Senator for Tasmania

Search This Blog

Insanity Is Not The Only Option

"When people start connecting the dots between climate change, global economic instability and their own personal suffering – stress, loneliness, depression – there is the potential for a movement that will truly change the world."